Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4638

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Narendra Kumar Johari, J
Vijay Kumar Tiwary – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 050/00309/2017

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S.K. Tiwary
For the Respondents: Deepak Kumar

Recovery of financial loss from a government servant caused by the failure to follow mandatory departmental procedures and forms for agent commissions is permissible under minor penalty proceedings, provided the employee was given an opportunity to represent their case.

Headnote:(A) CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Rule 16 - Minor penalty procedure - Recovery of loss - Post office rules for Small Saving Scheme - Mandatory formalities - Payment of commission to agents without following prescribed procedures violates departmental instructions - Failure to follow mandatory forms for recording deposits leads to financial loss - Disciplinary authority may impose minor penalty for such lapses based on representation without exhaustive inquiry if not deemed necessary. (Paras 19, 20, 23)

(B) Appellate Authority - Non-speaking order - Contentions regarding vague charges - Evasive denial of allegations - Mathematical errors in punishment orders - Not every typographical discrepancy vitiates the penalty order, especially if the final amount is lower than the calculated total. (Paras 21, 22)

Facts of the case:
Applicant was working as Sub Postmaster during 2012-2013 and paid commissions to agents. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated alleging failure to observe mandatory verification procedures and use of prescribed forms (ASlass-5 and ASlass-6), resulting in unauthorized payments and financial loss to the government. The applicant challenged the recovery order and the appellate order.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the applicant had failed to follow mandatory rules regarding the verification of agent deposits. The denial of allegations was found to be evasive, constituting admission of the lapses. The typographical error in the penalty amount did not invalidate the order, as the recovery amount was less than the actual sum calculated. The authorities correctly followed the rules and procedure for minor penalties.

Issues: Whether the recovery order was invalid due to lack of procedure, vague charges, or mathematical errors in the calculation of loss.

Ratio Decidendi: An employee is liable for financial loss caused by the breach of mandatory departmental rules; failure to observe these formalities constitutes misconduct, and minor penalty proceedings do not require an exhaustive inquiry as long as the principles of fair representation are met.

Result: O.A. dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of disciplinary proceedings and applicant's contentions regarding procedural fairness. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
2. requirement to follow mandatory departmental forms and documentation for official financial transactions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)
3. procedures for imposing minor penalties on government employees under conduct rules. (Para 19 , 20)
4. assessment of administrative orders and liability for government financial losses resulting from procedural violations. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)

O R D E R

1. Ld. counsel for applicant and counsel for opposite party are present. Heard.

2. The applicant has filed the O.A. with the following reliefs:-

“8.1 Order of Disciplinary Authority dated 28.07.2016 (Annexure-A/2) passed by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Siwan Division, as contained in Annexure-A/2, whereby the applicant has been imposed punishment of recovery of Rs. 2,90,840.00 with direction to recover Rs.290,840.00 from his salary @Rs.5000-00 from August 2016 in 58 installments may be quashed and set aside.

8.2 Order of Appellate Authority the Director of Postal Services Northern Region, Muzaffarpur dated 30.03.2017 as contained in Annexure-A/4, may be quashed and set aside.

8.3 The recovered amount from the salary of applicant may be directed to be refunded along with admissible interest thereupon.”

3. On the basis of contentions made in the O.A., Ld. counsel for applicant has argued that the applicant is an employee of department of posts and is working as Sub Postmaster Nechua Jalalpur, SO in Siwan Postal Division. While he was posted at Dighwa Dubauli Post Office, a complaint was made against him for wrong payment of commission of N.S. agents and he was issued minor penalty vide charge memo dt. 26.09.2013 by the Superintendent of Post Office, Siwan Division.

4. It was mentioned in charge memo that the applicant have made wrong payment of commissions to the N.S. agents and M.P.K.B.Y agents in respect of investment / deposit without showing number as ASlass - 6 in the schedule and without using ASlass - 5 and prescribed agent receipt book.

5. The above charges are vague as the applicant has not followed the provisions of Post office Rule 246 (3) Part-188 (2), 189 (3), Note-I of Post Office Small Saving Scheme Volume-II. The applicant could not find the provisions as mentioned in the above rules. As such the applicant could not get opportunity to defend himself. No detail regarding any imputation for violation of Rule 3 (1) (ii) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 was given in the charge memo. The charge-sheet dt. 26.09.2013 is not elaborate, indicating nature of lapses or modus operandi, hence charges were vague. The total amount of commission as details mentioned in punishment order dt. 28.07.2016 comes to Rs. 2,91,200/- whereas in punishment order it has been mentioned Rs. 2,90,840/-. Apart from that in charge memo dt. 26.09.2013, loss of Rs. Rs. 2,90,840/- was not mentioned.

6. It has been further submitted by the ld. counsel for applicant that in memo of imputation dt. 26.09.2013, it has been mentioned that commission was paid to applicant though there is no such agent in the department. Vide punishment order dt. 28.07.2016, the onus to prove responsibility was thrown on the head of applicant. No documentary proof was submitted towards availability of ASlass- 5 & 6. Whereas the onus to prove the same was on Disciplinary Authority, hence, the penalty has been imposed without assessing the documents concerned and applicant has wrongly been ordered to pay recovery of Rs. 2,90,840/- from his salary @ Rs. 5,000/- from August, 2016 in 58 installments.

7. The Disciplinary Authority has not considered the representation of applicant and started recovery from his salary. Against the order of punishment dt. 28.07.2016, the applicant preferred appeal on 22.08.2016 before the Appellate Authority who confirmed the order of Disciplinary Authority vide order dt. 3

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4638

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALNarendra Kumar Johari, JVijay Kumar Tiwary – AppellantVersusUnion of India – RespondentO.A. No. 050/00309/2017

Recovery of financial loss from a government servant caused by the failure to follow mandatory departmental procedures and forms for agent commissions is permissible under minor penalty proceedings, provided the employee was given an opportunity to represent their case.

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Narendra Kumar Johari, J
Vijay Kumar Tiwary – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
O.A. No. 050/00309/2017